Douglass v Community Business Development and Information Technology Services [2008] NSWADT 346

Douglass v Community Business Development and Information Technology Services [2008] NSWADT 346

Leave was refused because Mr Douglass accepted that he obtained assistance and employment because he was an indigenous Australian and that the person allegedly being groomed to take over his position was also an indigenous Australian, making it highly unlikely he could prove that his race was even one reason for CBDITS' treatment of him; the complaints therefore had little or no merit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Proceed With Race Discrimination Complaints Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Leave Application After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaint as Misconceived or Lacking in Substance
Outcome
Leave is refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Proceed' 'race Discrimination' 'special Needs Programs and Activities' 'indigenous Australians']
['anti Discrimination' 'equal Opportunity' 'employment' 'goods and Services'] ['leave to Proceed' 'race Discrimination' 'special Needs Programs and Activities' 'indigenous Australians']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Proceed With Race Discrimination Complaints Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Leave Application After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaint as Misconceived or Lacking in Substance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted for Mr Douglass' complaints of race discrimination in employment and in the provision of services to proceed notwithstanding the President's decision declining the complaint as misconceived or lacking in substance." "Whether the complaint had reasonable prospects of success by showing evidence linking the alleged treatment to Mr Douglass' race."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because Mr Douglass accepted that he obtained assistance and employment because he was an indigenous Australian and that the person allegedly being groomed to take over his position was also an indigenous Australian, making it highly unlikely he could prove that his race was even one reason for CBDITS' treatment of him; the complaints therefore had little or no merit.

Court Disposition

Leave is refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused.']